WILLIE MCGRIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Willie McGriff appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and unlawful display of a firearm. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the trial judge to reduce sentencing findings to writing, finding the admission of injury testimony caused by a co-defendant was harmless error and the Youthful Offender Act sentencing was proper despite lack of written findings.
The court held that while admission of testimony regarding injuries inflicted by the co-defendant was technically improper, it constituted harmless error given the circumstances of the trial. The court also held that the sentencing was proper because the trial judge announced the basis for the minimum mandatory sentence in open court, and remanded for the judge to reduce findings to writing.
[1] Evidence of injuries inflicted by a co-defendant is inadmissible against a defendant tried separately for a crime.
[2] The erroneous admission of evidence of injuries inflicted by a co-defendant may be harmless error if the victim's testimony about being shot by the co-defendant was admit…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A witness may testify as to the extent of an injury or show the injury itself where it is relevant to the crime charged against the defendant.”
Establishes the general rule for admissibility of injury testimony in criminal trials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGriff and Hampton got into an argument with construction workers. When the foreman attempted to break up the altercation, McGriff fired a shot that …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Act Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his convictions for aggravated assault and the unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony. We affirm.
The defendant, McGriff, and another man, Hampton, got into an argument with some workers at a construction site. The foreman, David Wall, attempted to break up the argument, and sent the two men away. McGriff and Hampton walked toward their car. McGriff turned and fired a shot which passed between Wall and another employee. Hampton fired a shot which hit Wall in the foot. McGriff was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Hampton was tried separately on charges of aggravated battery and unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
At McGriff’s trial, Wall was permitted to testify, without objection, that Hampton shot him in the foot. Over objection, the victim then testified as to the past and future medical treatment he required as a result of these injuries. The appellant claims, as a basis for reversal, that the evidence of the extent of the injury caused by another person was inadmissible at McGriff’s trial.
A witness may testify as to the extent of an injury or show the injury itself where it is relevant to the crime charged against the defendant. See Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329, 176 So. 154 (Fla.1937) [in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder, no error in allowing victim to exhibit scars since scars were physical evidence of character of assault]; Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44, 37 So. 520 (Fla.1904) [under indictment covering various degrees of assaults, including aggravated and simple assaults, evidence that the assaulted person suffered great pain is not immaterial]; Waddy v. State, 355 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1978) [no error in showing victim to jury in defendant’s prosecution for child abuse]. The present case does not fall within this category because the injuries described to the jury were inflicted at the hands of a co-defendant who was tried separately. Clearly, those injuries are not relevant to the charges against McGriff. Each person charged with the commission of a crime must be tried upon evidence legally tending to show his guilt. Cf. Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) [improper to disclose that co-defendant was found guilty].
In the present case, we find that the introduction of such testimony was harmless error due to the manner in which this case was tried. Once the victim was permitted to testify without objection that he was shot by the co-defendant, we see no prejudicial error in allowing him to briefly state the nature of his injury.
Appellant next contends that his sentence pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act, Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1979), was improper because he was assessed a one year minimum mandatory sentence without written findings of the aggravating factors as required by Section 958.05(3), Florida Statutes (1979). We disagree.
The trial judge, at the sentencing hearing, specifically found that the defendant’s conviction for the unlawful display of a firearm constituted a finding of the existence of aggravating factors used for the imposition of the minimum mandatory one-year sentence. This was announced in open court and has been made part of the record on appeal. Since this court has the opportunity to review the transcript of the trial court’s findings, we determine that there has been no prejudice to the defendant. See Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972).1 We therefore affirm the sentence but remand for the trial judge to reduce his findings to writing.
Finally, we observe that in light of State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981), the defendant may be convicted of both aggravated assault and the unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
. R. B. S. v. Capri, 384 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) relied upon by appellants is limited to cases concerning the denial of bail. See J?. B. 5., supra, at 696 & n.ll where the court distinguished Eastwood v. Hall on the basis that it was not a denial of bail case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ion on appeal was whether admitting 18 photographs of the injuries was harmless error. Here, we recognize that evidence of victim injury, even where not an element of the offense charged, is admissible if otherwise relevant. E.g., McGriff v. State, 417 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Peacock v. State, 638 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). See also King v. State, 545 So. 2d 375, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989); Henderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 196, 200 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S.…
-
Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…script which is part of the record contains the requisite findings, the necessity of a writing has been satisfied.1 See Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1976) (aggravating and mitigating circumstances justifying death penalty); McGriff v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (imposing one year minimum mandatory sentence); McClain v. State, 356 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (habitual offender); Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (waiver of speedy trial rule). The cases relied upon by…
-
LEE v. State, 444 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…clear that the battery was committed and we cannot determine that the jury was, or could have been, inflamed enough to reach an unjust or incorrect verdict or that the accused was unduly prejudiced, any error was harmless. Compare McGriff v. State, 417 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); See Eaton v. State, 307 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Section 784.045, Florida Statutes (1981) provides: (1) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing b…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- Eastwood v. Hall, 258 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Thomas v. State, 202 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Huggins v. State, 129 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1937)
- Waddy v. State, 355 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- R. B. S. v. Capri, 384 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Harmon v. State, 48 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1904)